A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision overturned a Department of Labor Relations ruling in a case where the Police Department replaced a sworn officer with a civilian dispatcher on the desk. The court specifically rejected the argument that a position was eliminated in dispatch for a police officer, observing that “the assignment to dispatch/desk duties is just that – an assignment – and not a position.” Significantly, the number of police officers on the shift was not reduced as the officer freed from the desk was used to respond to police calls. According to the court, the “decision to reassign a patrol officer from dispatch to street duty is a core managerial decision implicating public safety that does not require bargaining.” The case was also bolstered by the fact that contract language and bargaining history made dispatching shared work and explicitly supported the use of civilian dispatchers.
The court relied on a previous SJC case, Worcester v. Labor Relations Commission, 438 Mass. 177 (2002), in which the city assigned police officers responsibilities as “supervisors of attendance” resulting in a challenge from the union over the increase in the workload this might entail for police officers. In the Worcester case, the SJC rejected the union’s claims, ruling instead that the setting of law enforcement priorities is purely a matter of policy, and not delegable to the collective bargaining process. However, the SJC did uphold a duty to bargain over the impacts of the decision – a concern that was not addressed in the dispatching case reported above.
The courts have shown a willingness to overturn the Department of Labor Relations when it usurps the town’s authority to make core managerial and policy decisions, like assigning law enforcement priorities. Officials should exercise caution, however, since even when the decision is not a proper subject of bargaining the impacts of the decision may require bargaining. A well-constructed strategy with the advice of labor counsel can help
